1. Indianapolis Colts - Defending champs looked scary good on both sides of the ball against a talented Saints team. Can Bob Sanders stay healthy?

2. New England Patriots - Cheaters breezed past the presumptive next best team in their division. The Chargers should provide a better measuring stick.

3. Cincinnati Bengals - Offense may drop off a notch this year with some pieces missing, but they'll still be explosive. Defense looked aggressive and opportunistic, but can they do it against an actual pro offense?

4. San Diego Chargers - Got a few lucky breaks in beating the NFC's supposed best team. This week will show if they can beat a good team on the road.

5. Carolina Panthers - Shut down a dynamic Rams offense. The running game was much improved behind a healthy O-line using a new ZBS philosophy. Steve Smith was Steve Smith.

21. Minnesota Vikings - Disgustingly good defense and Adrian "All Day" Peterson make things an awful lot easier for Tarvaris Jackson, but at some point he'll have to throw the ball to win.

22. Buffalo Bills - Killer special teams helped them hang with a much higher-rated Denver team to the final play. Marshawn Lynch is legit.

23. New York Jets - Took a pounding, but exposed cheaters in the process. Looks like this team might take a step back after overachieving last year.

24. New York Giants - Secondary was humiliated, but their offense showed some serious firepower. Will have to play through significant injuries the next month or so.

25. Arizona Cardinals - Passing game was suprisingly bad, defense surprisingly good. Running game ground out a decent performance. Managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in typical Cardinals fashion.

26. Detroit Lions - Beating Oakland is nothing to thump their chests about. Offense is as good as expected, defense is worse than expected.

27. Miami Dolphins - Their defense is good enough to keep them competitive. Their offense is bad enough to keep them from winning.

28. Cleveland Browns - They've started to acquire some talent, but still not enough to make them competitive. When will Brady Quinn be forced into the lineup?

29. Tampa Bay Buccaneers - So much for being improved with Jeff Garcia. Gruden can't last past this year.

30. Oakland Raiders - It doesn't get much worse than losing to the Lions in your own back yard, especially when the "good" unit on your team gets pulverized.

31. Kansas City Chiefs - This team is a punchline.

32. Atlanta Falcons - Welcome to the NFL Bobby Petrino.

TXBRONC

09-14-2007, 11:37 AM

1. Indianapolis Colts - Defending champs looked scary good on both sides of the ball against a talented Saints team. Can Bob Sanders stay healthy?

2. New England Patriots - Cheaters breezed past the presumptive next best team in their division. The Chargers should provide a better measuring stick.

3. Cincinnati Bengals - Offense may drop off a notch this year with some pieces missing, but they'll still be explosive. Defense looked aggressive and opportunistic, but can they do it against an actual pro offense?

4. San Diego Chargers - Got a few lucky breaks in beating the NFC's supposed best team. This week will show if they can beat a good team on the road.

5. Carolina Panthers - Shut down a dynamic Rams offense. The running game was much improved behind a healthy O-line using a new ZBS philosophy. Steve Smith was Steve Smith.

21. Minnesota Vikings - Disgustingly good defense and Adrian "All Day" Peterson make things an awful lot easier for Tarvaris Jackson, but at some point he'll have to throw the ball to win.

22. Buffalo Bills - Killer special teams helped them hang with a much higher-rated Denver team to the final play. Marshawn Lynch is legit.

23. New York Jets - Took a pounding, but exposed cheaters in the process. Looks like this team might take a step back after overachieving last year.

24. New York Giants - Secondary was humiliated, but their offense showed some serious firepower. Will have to play through significant injuries the next month or so.

25. Arizona Cardinals - Passing game was suprisingly bad, defense surprisingly good. Running game ground out a decent performance. Managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in typical Cardinals fashion.

26. Detroit Lions - Beating Oakland is nothing to thump their chests about. Offense is as good as expected, defense is worse than expected.

27. Miami Dolphins - Their defense is good enough to keep them competitive. Their offense is bad enough to keep them from winning.

28. Cleveland Browns - They've started to acquire some talent, but still not enough to make them competitive. When will Brday Quinn be forced into the lineup?

29. Tampa Bay Buccaneers - So much for being improved with Jeff Garcia. Gruden can't last past this year.

30. Oakland Raiders - It doesn't get much worse than losing to the Lions in your own back yard, especially when the "good" unit on your team gets pulverized.

31. Kansas City Chiefs - This team is a punchline.

32. Atlanta Falcons - Welcome to the NFL Bobby Petrino.

Is this your rankings DF?

Whether it is or isn't I like it.:2thumbs:

Skinny

09-14-2007, 11:44 AM

5. Carolina Panthers - Shut down a dynamic Rams offense. The running game was much improved behind a healthy O-line using a new ZBS philosophy. Steve Smith was Steve Smith.As far as the NFC goes, i pull for the Panthers.

If there's one thing i found out last week watching them against St. Louis is the Rams defense is garbage and D'Angelo Williams needs more touches.

The young man is explosive and has that 'burst' that Foster just does'nt.

dogfish

09-14-2007, 11:45 AM

Is this your rankings DF?

Whether it is or isn't I like it.:2thumbs:

yea, it's mine. . .

TXBRONC

09-14-2007, 01:07 PM

yea, it's mine. . .

As usual you do great job. Maybe you should be a sports journalist.

Astrass

09-14-2007, 01:19 PM

Seems fair.....not sure I agree with Cincy being that high. I'd leave them 8 - 14 till they get a real challenge.

Astrass

09-14-2007, 01:41 PM

Not sure about green bay cracking the top 10 either.....would take a couple more weeks of butt kicking for them to get in my top 10.

BroncoAV06

09-14-2007, 02:29 PM

Why do people quote long post? Its not like we don't know what you are talking about!

Rankings are fine after week one, a few moves I might make but good job.

TXBRONC

09-14-2007, 03:09 PM

Why do people quote long post? Its not like we don't know what you are talking about!

Rankings are fine after week one, a few moves I might make but good job.

We each have our own style AV.

broncosinindy

09-14-2007, 08:53 PM

Good stuff Dog Fish. What do you think will happen for denver in the power rankings if they win on sunday and put up alot of points?

Tenth i think is fair at this point until they play someone.

TXBRONC

09-14-2007, 09:00 PM

Good stuff Dog Fish. What do you think will happen for denver in the power rankings if they win on sunday and put up alot of points?

Tenth i think is fair at this point until they play someone.

I'm sure if we win impressively DF will have us move up the power rankings.

broncosinindy

09-14-2007, 09:03 PM

I'm sure if we win impressively DF will have us move up the power rankings.

I think Denver actually lost points in alot of polls for winning against the bills. If denver loses at home agasint oakland they have to drop pretty far.

Reidman

09-14-2007, 09:04 PM

Thought I'd post another for comparison...

ESPN Power Rankings (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/powerranking)

TXBRONC

09-14-2007, 09:09 PM

I think Denver actually lost points in alot of polls for winning against the bills. If denver loses at home agasint oakland they have to drop pretty far.

That's one of the reasons I don't pay attention to them. They're interesting for conversation but just don't mean anything at the pro level.

TXBRONC

09-14-2007, 09:12 PM

Thought I'd post another for comparison...

ESPN Power Rankings (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/powerranking)

Thanks Reid.

BigBroncLove

09-15-2007, 01:30 AM

Nice power ranking Dogfish. As usual good looking insight.

But I was going to ask some questions as to why you think the power ranking should look like that.

MY first question would be about Green Bay. I know they are your darkhorse tema, but do you think they are really that good? I'm not so sure IMO. Philadelphia's offense was rusty and without the flash I expect to see from them down the stretch. I think GB are higher then my expectations, but what makes you think they should be so high on the list??.... personally I am skeptical about how they will put things together down teh stretch, in November and December when it really counts.

I also think Detroit might garner a higher ranking. There Offense looked very healthy against what is supposed to be a good defense from last year. Their offensive line played well against one of the more impressive Dlines (Burgess, Sands, Sapp) and they look like a more complete team with the weapons for Kitna. They were so-so at times, but overall I felt they looked good, and besides having an aweful defensive day IMO besides a few good plays and some luck, I think they might climb the charts this year. Then again, Oakland may have just helped them look good, but I liked their execution.

Also what do you think of San Fran. They have some mighty good weapons, especailyl on D, but their offense looked extremely sloppy. The Arizona, SF game was perhaps some of the worst execution on offense I have seen so far. That might be a testament to both teams defense, but I think a lot of that comes down to the QB's as well. So many dropped passes, and a lot of those came from JAckson and Lelie, both being labeled as "soft" recievers in the past, and have struggled catchign on other teams. If this trend continues I think they might slip unless Alex Smith can create some consistency. I will say this, he made the drive when it counted at the end of the game, and that's what good QB's do.

Great stuff though dogfish, I enjoyed your rankings, and hope you keep em coming!

omac

09-15-2007, 08:38 AM

Nice rankings and enjoyable comments, Dogfish. :salute:

I agree with most of them. I think SD and GB should be lower(worse) by about 5, and NO should be higher by about 7. SD's underestimated Marty's worth and it's going to show this season. GB just has a bad offense, and NO is better than what the Colts made them look.

dogfish

09-15-2007, 09:34 AM

thanks for the comments everyone, let's see if i can answer a few of these questions. . . but i'm not going to speculate where the broncos will be next week-- we'll find out soon enough. . . . :werd:

Nice power ranking Dogfish. As usual good looking insight.

But I was going to ask some questions as to why you think the power ranking should look like that.

MY first question would be about Green Bay. I know they are your darkhorse tema, but do you think they are really that good? I'm not so sure IMO. Philadelphia's offense was rusty and without the flash I expect to see from them down the stretch. I think GB are higher then my expectations, but what makes you think they should be so high on the list??.... personally I am skeptical about how they will put things together down teh stretch, in November and December when it really counts.

it's not AS MUCH about how good i think they are, although that certainly has some influence. . . my rankings are probably going to be a little more influenced by how well a team has been playing rather than their perceived talent level or predicted success for the year. . . as opposed to your standard ESPiN-type ranking, where teams are rewarded just because ESPiN thinks they're good, regardless of how well they actually perform. . . how the hell are the bears 4th in their rankings after laying an egg? they don't deserve it IMO, whether they played in last year's super bowl or not. . . look for mine to be a bit more fluid than that. . .

i knew people wouldn't like green bay that high, but i think they deserve it for the moment-- they beat a very talented eagles team, and how well i think they may perform in december has nothing at all to do with where they rank right now. . .

I also think Detroit might garner a higher ranking. There Offense looked very healthy against what is supposed to be a good defense from last year. Their offensive line played well against one of the more impressive Dlines (Burgess, Sands, Sapp) and they look like a more complete team with the weapons for Kitna. They were so-so at times, but overall I felt they looked good, and besides having an aweful defensive day IMO besides a few good plays and some luck, I think they might climb the charts this year. Then again, Oakland may have just helped them look good, but I liked their execution.

detroit hasn't convinced me, as i think oakland is one of the most putrid teams in the league. . . they need to beat a decent team before i give 'em any respect. . .

Also what do you think of San Fran. They have some mighty good weapons, especailyl on D, but their offense looked extremely sloppy. The Arizona, SF game was perhaps some of the worst execution on offense I have seen so far. That might be a testament to both teams defense, but I think a lot of that comes down to the QB's as well. So many dropped passes, and a lot of those came from JAckson and Lelie, both being labeled as "soft" recievers in the past, and have struggled catchign on other teams. If this trend continues I think they might slip unless Alex Smith can create some consistency. I will say this, he made the drive when it counted at the end of the game, and that's what good QB's do.

not sure what to think of them just yet-- i love the talent they've put together, but you're correct that their execution was very sloppy, especially on offense. . . i don't think much of their line ATM, the tackles in particular. . . the D looks like they have a chance to be good, though. . .

Nice rankings and enjoyable comments, Dogfish. :salute:

I agree with most of them. I think SD and GB should be lower(worse) by about 5, and NO should be higher by about 7. SD's underestimated Marty's worth and it's going to show this season. GB just has a bad offense, and NO is better than what the Colts made them look.

san diego will definitely slide down a peg if they lose to NE, but right now they're coming off a 14-2 season and beat the defending NFC champs by a solid margin (even if it took a little luck), so i can't see how they should be ranked any lower, marty or no-- as long as they perform on the field, i'm not going to adjust their rank to fit my opinion of their coaching staff. . .

and i agree that new orleans is better than what they showed, but i won't rank them any higher coming off a blowout loss-- they gotta earn it. . .

once again, thanks for the comments peeps-- keep the discussion coming. . .

:beer:

Cleveland Rocks

09-16-2007, 12:41 AM

Looks alright.

BTW, something I noticed but haven't brought up...

The entire media has been going after the Browns because of a 34-7 loss to the Steelers and proclaiming them the worst team in the NFL.

The Steelers won the Super Bowl 2 years ago. The current defending Super Bowl Champions beat the Saints 41-10. Why aren't the Saints at #31? The media has already pounced on the Browns after 1 game. Why haven't they done so with the Saints? Typical double standards by the media.

Broncos Mtnman

09-16-2007, 12:48 AM

Looks alright.

BTW, something I noticed but haven't brought up...

The entire media has been going after the Browns because of a 34-7 loss to the Steelers and proclaiming them the worst team in the NFL.

The Steelers won the Super Bowl 2 years ago. The current defending Super Bowl Champions beat the Saints 41-10. Why aren't the Saints at #31? The media has already pounced on the Browns after 1 game. Why haven't they done so with the Saints? Typical double standards by the media.

Well, not to turn this into smack, but there is the little issue that the Saints were just a step from the Super Bowl last year.

Add to that a Pro Bowl QB and the #1 offense last year, and I think you have your answer. Cleveland wasn't even close to that, and hasn't been for several years. Heck, they've only won 14 games over the last 3 seasons.

Now, back on topic....

Great work, Dogfish.

:2thumbs:

Joel

09-16-2007, 12:50 AM

What I'd like to see as the season wears on is some true Power Rankings, i.e. team rankings adjusted for strength of schedule. It's a lot more work, but obviously a 10-6 team who's played .500 teams isn't on the same level as a 10-6 team who's played other 10-6 teams. Of course, whom THEY played makes a difference, too, which is why you have to run through the iterations 32 times. It's a lot more work, but a lot more indicative.

Just ranking everyone on the basis of where someone thinks they are is fine, and I generally respect dogfishs opinion, but at the end of the day it's just one persons opinion. I prefer looking at cold hard numbers, and the one nice thing about the NFL rather than the NCAA is that there's a lot more common opponents, which makes things easier.

dogfish

09-16-2007, 02:14 AM

What I'd like to see as the season wears on is some true Power Rankings, i.e. team rankings adjusted for strength of schedule. It's a lot more work, but obviously a 10-6 team who's played .500 teams isn't on the same level as a 10-6 team who's played other 10-6 teams. Of course, whom THEY played makes a difference, too, which is why you have to run through the iterations 32 times. It's a lot more work, but a lot more indicative.

Just ranking everyone on the basis of where someone thinks they are is fine, and I generally respect dogfishs opinion, but at the end of the day it's just one persons opinion. I prefer looking at cold hard numbers, and the one nice thing about the NFL rather than the NCAA is that there's a lot more common opponents, which makes things easier.

:laugh:

man, NO WAY i'm going to all that trouble! you can see in some of my explanations that i tried to take the quality of opponent into consideration, but i simply don't have the time to do that type of number-crunching. . . i'm just doing these for fun, i don't want to spend anywhere near that kind of time on them. . . IMO power rankings should be taken for what they're worth, which really isn't all that much. . . they're a nice basis for discussion, and shouldn't be looked at as anything more. . . i generally don't even read them except for the ones in pro football weekly, and even those i take with a good-sized grain of salt. . . as you said, it's just my opinion, and i'm certainly not trying to present it as anything more-- this is a very unscientific process, backed only by my personal observations. . .

The Horses Mouth

09-16-2007, 02:18 AM

Looks alright.

BTW, something I noticed but haven't brought up...

The entire media has been going after the Browns because of a 34-7 loss to the Steelers and proclaiming them the worst team in the NFL.

The Steelers won the Super Bowl 2 years ago. The current defending Super Bowl Champions beat the Saints 41-10. Why aren't the Saints at #31? The media has already pounced on the Browns after 1 game. Why haven't they done so with the Saints? Typical double standards by the media.

homerism much???? :laugh:

Joel

09-16-2007, 11:42 PM

:laugh:

man, NO WAY i'm going to all that trouble! you can see in some of my explanations that i tried to take the quality of opponent into consideration, but i simply don't have the time to do that type of number-crunching. . . i'm just doing these for fun, i don't want to spend anywhere near that kind of time on them. . . IMO power rankings should be taken for what they're worth, which really isn't all that much. . . they're a nice basis for discussion, and shouldn't be looked at as anything more. . . i generally don't even read them except for the ones in pro football weekly, and even those i take with a good-sized grain of salt. . . as you said, it's just my opinion, and i'm certainly not trying to present it as anything more-- this is a very unscientific process, backed only by my personal observations. . .
Yeah, I can understand that; it's a huge pain in the butt. On the other hand, if you do have the luxury of free time to do it you get a VERY scientific result you can take very seriously. But I wouldn't do it either.... ;)